Podcast #65: Faith, Pope, and Love

76 October 4, 2015 by

65_finalJason and Christian begin this episode of Drunk Ex-Pastors by discussing a post that Jason wrote about how a smidge of agnosticism is worth avoiding the perils of fundamentalism, after which we offer some philosophy tips to a student of philosophy (which he himself asked for, oddly enough). We then tackle listener questions about the supposedly apocalyptic blood moon and the bizarre culture of conservative Bible colleges. After our mid-show break we resume with a mid-conversation comment about “shit vs. blood,” but neither of us remembers what exactly occasioned it (and we’re not sure we want to). We discuss the recent Volkswagen scandal, and then take a call from an old favorite about the pope which, for some reason, is interrupted by our trying to list our top five favorite one-hit wonders. We then introduce two new segments called “Dick Move, God” and “Feeding Friendzy,” and both our biebers stem from the supposed need for social graces.

Also, Christian ladies? You can stop speaking now, because men are present.

Links from this Episode:

76 Comments (click here to leave a comment)

  1. The constant evangelism on this podcast needs to stop. Jason, stop being a postmodern fundamentalist! Have you ever considered that your postmodernism might just be a lens you are looking at life through. Maybe you shouldn’t be so certain about it. =)

  2. I think one of the reasons conservatives don’t like Pope Francis very much is because there might be a Prodigal Son thing happening. Conservatives are the grumbling older brother. The father is welcoming his lost son back home. Or, another way of looking at it, the pastor is looking for and recollecting his lost sheep.

    And on the Pope’s authority, you CAN disagree with him; everything he says and believes is not infallible. However, a Catholic should probably respect the Pope’s office enough that they should stop, listen, and try to charitably understand what the Pope is saying before deciding to reject his position.

  3. I really like both your new segments! On Jason’s Lazarus account, it just occurred to me for the first time: how do we know that Lazarus was in heaven? Maybe he was in hell. That would have all sorts of theological implications.

  4. I’ve always thought it possible that Lazarus was the same Lazarus in the story of Lazarus and the rich man, and that God, to make a point, sent Lazarus back like the rich man asked.

  5. Christian, I think things are always funnier in groups. I will laugh by myself, but I always wish there were other people with me to share the experience with. I think there is something social about laughing. I like watching funny movies when they first come out and the theater is full. When other people are laughing at something, it MAKES it more funny to me. I’m referring to authentic laughter.

  7. Oh yeah, I forgot that the poor man was named Lazarus in that story. Lazarus was in “the Bosom of Abraham”. So if it was the same Lazarus, he was in limbo awaiting heaven to be opened by Christ’s death, not in heaven itself.

  9. OH MY FUQ. I want to unfollow you guys just having to listen to the stuff on Christian’s wall. This is why I don’t follow these twats anymore!

  10. I would respond, but since there is no objective meaning in your comment, there’s little point. . . .

  12. I mean the only thing I’m sure about, is that I can’t be sure of anything. You know what I mean? =)

  13. Random thoughts while listening:

    • Many people have been certain about God and faith and truth and turned out to be wrong. See the Pharisees.

    • I don’t know why it’s so hard to say, “I think… but I can’t know…”

    • Thomas is still my favorite disciple. When Jesus says, “You know the way.” Thomas says, “Uh.. no, we don’t.” When presented with extraordinary claims, he demands evidence and God takes the time to give it to him.

    • You know, after all the buildup in Revelations, I was really expecting the Blood Moon Apocalypse and the return of Jesus Christ to be a bit more spectacular, but thus far, the End of the World has been pretty uneventful. I took the kids to the beach and the ocean wasn’t made of blood and there was a distinct lack of 7-headed beasts with 10 horns and nary a demon man-faced scorpion locust to be seen. If you’re looking for a more lively end of the world, would suggest skipping the Christian one and going to Ragnarok instead. Very disappointed. Would not recommend. One-star.

    • Well, sure, if you’re going to bring up what Jesus actually said, you’re going to spoil all of our fun, and probably get yourself excommunicated.

    • Ah, bible college. Weird things:

    o Yeah, the whole ‘hearing from God’ about who you should date, what you should do, what you should eat, when you should go to the shitter. That was pretty weird. It encouraged a culture of passivity about it where ambitions or long term plans were disdained and being ‘led by the Lord’ was encouraged.

    o Servanthood: Remember, you’re not unpaid employees that lack basic worker protections, you’re ‘volunteers’ that must be here to continue your enrollment.

    o Chuck Smith tapes, which really denote the culture of indoctrination rather than education. You were expected to know and adhere to a very strict set of biblical interpretations and dogma and any deviation from that meant that you were simply ‘wrong’.

    o The conspiracy theories and persecution complex. I remember on several occasions having a teacher refer to the right-wing conspiracy theories as if they were fact. The Clintons were going to declare martial law, FEMA was going to come and take conservative Christians to camps in Alaska for deprogramming until we embraced the liberal values of the coming socialist state.

    Needless to say, now that I am a member of the evil liberal cabal plotting to destroy America, I can say that they were completely wrong. We’re going to ship you all to FEMA camps in Montana, take all of your guns, and make you gay marry someone. Huge difference.

    o And the eschatology, the complete lack of tension about it, and… really, the joy about thinking of the end of the world.

    Jesus was going to come soon and take us all away to heaven in the rapture. Then God was going to unleash his judgment upon the earth and kill upwards of 4 billion people during the tribulation, most of whom would wind up in hell being tortured by God forever, then angry Jesus would show up at the end, kill most of the survivors (who would also go to hell), forcibly convert the remaining Jews and anyone who survived his killing spree, then appoint us faithful Christians to be his governors of his new kingdom, before going on another killing spree, sending more people to hell for eternity and then making a new heaven and new earth just for us.

    And we were happy about this and looking forward to it. That’s fucked up.

    o We were, honestly, I think a few assault weapons short of being a cult in a compound.

    • When the most embarrassing event in the history of your corporation is no longer its former involvement with Hitler, you might be in a bit of trouble.

    • Come on, Christian, the free market can handle it. If a company lies about emissions or poisons your water supply, they’ll take a major stock hit, and the CEO might have to resign with only a seven figure severance package. Isn’t that punishment enough?

    • Philosophies I’ve acquired from Lord of the Rings:

    o The only sure cure for addiction is lava and lots of it.

    o Arachnophobia is a perfectly reasonable and valid fear.

    o There is no problem that cannot be solved with a sword, arrow, or the undead spirits of people your ancestors cursed for being pussies.

    • You probably know already, but Kim Davis was just one in a long line of people to meet the Pope. There was no private meeting. It was set up by the official running the Vatican Embassy, and there is chatter that that official will be ‘retiring’ soon following the stunt. That official should probably be glad that in the modern church age, Popes no longer retire bishops via poison.

    • I can hear your ice cubes clinking against your glass.

    • I believe you can join the military as a contentious objector for religious reasons. You’ll be assigned to a support or chaplain position.

    • Religious people killed Jesus the first time. They would definitely kill him again.

    • Lazarus still doesn’t beat Job.
    Job: I love you, Lord, and I lift my voice…
    God: Hey, Lu… you seen Job? He’s pretty awesome.
    Devil: Bet you a dollar he’ll curse you if you let me trash his stuff, kill his family, and give him a horrible disease.
    God: Challenge accepted!
    Job: Hey… God, this sucks. Mind telling me why you did this to me?
    God: Hey, Job? Did you create everything?
    Job: No…
    God: Then shut up. Here’s some more kids… that’s just as good, right? I mean, I could probably resurrect the old ones for you, but I’ve got a tee time of 8:00.

    • Got to love a Christian who promises to go out in a hail of bullets. Reminds me a lot of a jihadist.

    • And they’ll know we are Christians by our hatred of all the ‘right things’, of all the ‘right things’, yes they’ll know we are Christians by our hate…

    • I honestly think instead of fluoride, we need to start putting Xanax, Lithium, or Prozac into the water supply. Getting some of these folks medicated might help them with their anxiety.

    • I hate going to the barber precisely because of small talk. If I didn’t look hideous with long hair, I’d avoid haircuts.

  14. We were, honestly, I think a few assault weapons short of being a cult in a compound.

    I’m not sure you’re aware of exactly how many assault weapons were actually on campus!

  16. Catholics have a problem with Pope Francis because he makes our religion dishonest. This is a practice he inherited from the last three or four Popes. Let me explain. Check this quote:

    “Denominational honesty consists, first, in a clear unambiguous statement by a Church of its doctrinal belief; and, second, in an unequivocal and sincere adoption of it by its members. Both are requisite. If a particular denomination makes a loose statement of its belief which is capable of being construed in more than one sense, it is so far dishonest. If the creed of the denomination is well-drawn and plain, but the membership subscribe to it with mental reservation and insincerity, the denomination is dishonest.”

    Is there any doubt that in this sense the catholic church has become the mother load of denominational dishonesty? We fail on both accounts. Pope Francis is the literal embodiment of tis kind of dishonesty. Liberals are picking up on the game. Say abunch of vague mumbo jumbo that could mean a wide variety of things but then secretly maintain conservative identity. Mainstream Catholicism from the 1960s to the present day.

  18. I think Pope Francis IS being honest about stances of the Church, he is simply emphasizing the ones that tend to be considered “left”. However, what I AM sick of is that everything I hear about ANYTHING has to be filtered through a political lens. Even the mass shooting, it is politics that everyone seems to be worried about first. As for the Pope, everyone seems to be trying to keep score of whether the Pope is saying something that conservatives can agree with or liberals agree with. I seriously SAW literal scorecards for his congressional address! Even your comment shows this lens when you say that he is “secretly maintain[ing a] conservative identity”. Why, because the Pope care sooo much about America politics? Why does it have to be conservative or liberal? Is politics all that matters ultimately?

  20. Well, for one, the political and the religious collide all over the map. Is kim davis a political problem or a religious issue? What about abortion? What about gay marraige? The two arent “nonoverlapping magisteria”

  21. The political and religious do collide all over the map, but the discussion is typically about politics first. The issues the Pope talks about are legitimate religious issues. Is the concern that he is primarily talking about left-ish political issues? EVERYONE knows the Church’s stance on right-ish issues, so much so that Christian and politically right are conflated in our country’s warped perspective. So big deal, he is teaching us that the Church is bigger than the political right. Good.

  22. The problem I have with postmodernism is that it is just so demonstrably false. The sciences can show is what reality is really like. 2+2 is REALLY 4…. im certain about the sum. If it makes me look like an ass hole to people who think 2+2= something else, well, too bad. Most people I talk to about this topic will recognize that not ALL truth is filtered and subjective, but that at least some of it is. Namely, whatever they happen to struggle with. I just dont buy it. People shouldnt feel obligated to treat ridiculous and potentially dangerous ideas with kid gloves because we all have differing perspectives or whatever. This is exactly why the university has become a moral idiot place. Where secular liberals can continually miss the most MIND BLOWINGLY easy moral questions. Communism? Liberals totally missed it. Abortion? (Possibly the easiest moral delimma sense slavery) Liberals totally missed it. Islam? Liberals fail us again. Why? Because, well, they just cant be sure of very much.

    Then sit back in awe as the post modern glasses slide right off once we start talking about gun control, feminism, and gay marriage! Lol

  23. “This is exactly why the university has become a moral idiot place.” lol, you can really turn a phrase!

  25. “Then sit back in awe as the post modern glasses slide right off once we start talking about gun control, feminism, and gay marriage!

    Right. We can be VERY sure about those things.

  26. And the problem I have with conservatism and fundamentalism is that there is no place for nuance or doubt. You are certain what you believe is right and cannot even conceive of being in error. And we shouldn’t feel obligated to treat ridiculous and potentially dangerous ideas with kid gloves simply because you believe that your conception of God handed you absolute truth from on high. This is exactly why the church has become a withered anachronism completely disconnected from the world and hostile to those outside its doors who refuse to share its beliefs.

  27. My problem with this comment is that conservatism is being conflated with fundamentalism and seemingly being differentiated from liberal/progressivism with regard to nuance and doubt. A progressive person can very much be without doubt and nuance in their stances.

  28. “This is exactly why the church has become a withered anachronism completely disconnected from the world and hostile to those outside its doors who refuse to share its beliefs.”

    In fact, you sound pretty darn sure about yourself. So much for nuance and doubt.

  29. Can we just agree that it isn’t so much about how sure you are, but about how much of an a-hole you are when talking to people with which you disagree?

  32. Who says there is no room for nuance? You understand that “nuance” and “postmodern” are not the same. Im all for nuance, mindfullness, openness, etc. but that is completely different than postmodern thought.

  37. Thank you for illustrating my point. What I actually arfued was that antidiscrimination laws might be in violation of our constitutional protections on “involuntary servitude”. So, nuance for your positions, but not for mine? Pot meet kettle.

  38. Climb down from the cross, mate. Your argument with Christian on the subject covered slavery and indentured servitude and whether you intended to compare the two or not, you argued rather strenuously that anti-discrimination laws forced you against your will to labor for another even if you were paid and even if you were free to quit.

    You may have intended for nuance, but you missed the target.

  39. Lol or else you failed to grasp it. It was Christian that insisted on comparing anti discrimination laws with slavery. Even after I reminded him over and over and over again that it wasnt a comparison.

  40. Jason,

    In other words, there is no “view from nowhere.” The desire to gain an objective view of anything is simply folly, for we cannot escape ourselves, our lenses, or our own perspective. The postmodern thinker, therefore, sees each so-called worldview as actually a local narrative, a perspective that is not universal but bound by context and borders.

    I readbyou as speaking literally when you wrote the bolded line. I suppose mathematics is the exception to “anything”?

  41. I understand the laws that are in place, and also why they were passed, but I think its bogus. The 13th Amendment: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

    Anti-discrimination laws involuntarily require one citizen to serve another, under the THREAT OF COMPULSORY FORCE. That’s bullshit. The laws have always been unconstitutional

    Yeah, I don’t know how I thought you were comparing anti-discrimination laws to slavery!

    After you clarified that all you meant was that being forced to not discriminate against someone because of race, color, religion, or possibly sexual preference depending on your state was the same as what was meant by “involuntary servitude” (LOL!) I specifically said:

    I’m not saying you said that anti-discrimination laws are slavery. I’m drawing a parallel to another argument that would be as equally ridiculous as what you are asserting. I’m saying that being able to not do something by “walking away” is completely different than being forced to be someone servant. Please! I can’t address it any more clearly.

    You’re the one that failed to grasp my argument.

  42. Maybe he wasn’t anywhere but dead in the tomb. 🙂 but then that would mess up Jason’s narrative, so…no wait.

    Jason, that was messed up dude.

  43. Yes, I reread the posts and while you say it wasn’t a comparison, you then went on to compare the two.

    Would you concede the possibility that you might be wrong on the issues that you feel the most strongly about? If so, then you’re not a fundamentalist.

  44. I understand it just fine. You think that so long as one can “walk away” its not involuntary servitude (no matter what consequences “walking away” might entail). I think that argument is spectacularly awful. Agree to disagree 🙂

  47. It depends upon whether or not you’d be able to change your mind if presented with evidence.

    If your belief system overrode your ability to consider new evidence, that would be problematic.

  48. Looking forward to your “Christmas” (I mean holiday / Festivus / Decemberween / Kwanzaa/ Hannukah / Yule / Saturnalia, etc.) card.

    Perhaps a graphic of naked Jew’s being forced to run thru the streets of Rome to the delight of Pope Paul II and all the Catholics (1466) would be a nice nod to Jason’s Catholicism.

    For a Jewish perspective on Christmas celebrations… http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christmas_TheRealStory.htm#_ftn5 See II, G, H for details

  49. “If your belief system overrode your ability to consider new evidence, that would be problematic.”

    To be fair, every Catholic that comments on here has had their belief system overrode at least once. In fact, I know exactly which beliefs need to be countered for me to stop being, in turn, a Catholic, belief in Apostolic Succession (i.e. Orthodox), and a general Christian. I don’t think I could stop being a Theist/Deist – I’m extremely sure there is a God.

  50. I’m reminded of the exchange between Bill Nye and Ken Ham at their debate. When asked what could change their mind about their positions, Ham answered, “Nothing.” and Nye answered “Evidence.”

    That is the difference between a fundamentalist mindset and a healthy mindset.

  51. @christiankingery:disqus @JasonStellman:disqus you referred to the Catholics on here as “fundamentalist Catholics” a couple of times. However, this label doesn’t make sense to me.

    It occurred to me why this label bothered me while reading Mark Shea’s recent blog post Building on Nature. Jason has spent quite a bit of time talking about how within Catholicism Grace builds on nature yet without destroying the underlying nature. Thus you find Catholic practices that seem pagan (to the chagrin of Protestants), but that is because Catholicism isn’t scared of the source of a practice. Catholics aren’t scared of science. Catholics aren’t scared of other cultures. All truth, regardless of the source, is God’s truth, and a Catholic is not scared of it. I mean look at the breadth, diversity, and beauty of the Catholic world! It has many different spiritualties, many different rites, many different devotions. The more Catholic (“universal”) one gets it seems the more open to diversity one should get. Being more Catholic, means being less scared of other cultures, and being more open to the truths to which they have had access. So I get confused by what you mean when you call us “fundamentalist Catholics”. A fundamentalist Catholic, isn’t a Catholic at all.

    (…or are you just calling us disagreeable a-holes?)

  52. I might argue that the openness and courage of Catholicism comes from the certainty of the dogmas. Paradoxically, the Dogmas gives one more freedom to explore and be open to others, because it offers a strong foundation of protection. I guess one could also be open by a full on embrace of post-modernism, placing all truth into the category of subjectivity. However, that makes one a leaf on the wind being blown to and fro by every wind of doctrine. It looks like freedom, but it isn’t. The Church’s Dogma is like the string on a kite, it allows one to soar! However, if you cut the string, you have what seems like freedom – briefly – until you smash into the ground in a pile of ruin.

  53. For the record, I believe in math. If you come up with any objections that are more substantial, drop me a line….

  55. I dont think I have any objections because apparently I dont understand your position! Hah! Let me just ask questions instead.

    Think of the words “faith”, “belief”, and “knowledge”. Is the postmodern position that nothing can ever be in the “know” category? Thats always how I thought of postmodernism, but if math slips into the “know” box I dont think I understand the filter. Please explain.

    All the definitions of postmodernism I can find, across the board, describe it as the position that we can NOT know objective truth. Then hiw the hell can you think math is reliable? Do you have some kind of hybrid position?

  56. I’ll just answer for myself rather than speak for others. Certain things can be known, for instance math equations or logical necessities. But even examples like that are not neutral, since the person who adduces them is operating from a specific paradigm and has a specific agenda for doing so. So while 2+2=4 is true, that fact can operate in the service of an agenda that is loaded with a millions unspoken assumptions.

    My larger point when I talk about this stuff is simply to say that no one can escape their own perspective. A good example of this is Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States. When it came out, other historians blasted it for not being objective but instead having an agenda behind it, a specific story it wanted to tell. Zinn’s response was that all history books do that, all of them are telling a specific version of events and are including or omitting events in order to tell one specific side. The only difference about his book was that it was telling the story from the vantage point of the powerless rather than the powerful.

    There’s no view from nowhere, and all claims are situated because all people who make them are situated. Dawkins and deGrasse-Tyson are no more “objective” than the fundamentalists they seek to refute.

  57. Other than a softening to the perspective of others (which I think is more than fine), is there anything you gain from an embrace of PM?

    Oh and just to add on to the math example, 2+2 = 4 is true only granting certain axioms. For example, if we were in a base 3 system, 2+2=11. However, once the axioms are agreed to, great heights of mathematical knowledge can then be attained. I use to spend a lot of time with apologetics arguing with atheists, but it got boring. I got tired of staring at the roots of the tree, I want to climb the tree. And the same goes with Catholicism, I spent 2 years really staring at the roots of the Catholic tree spinning in place while arguing, but now I’m climbing.

    I don’t know a ton about PM. But if one of the consequences of embracing PM is that you find there is no reason to try to climb the tree, they can keep it. The world is so beautiful from up here.

  58. I read Zinn my freshman year and loved the work. If you havent read “take over” by Kinser you should check it out. Documents each of the governments the US has displaced via corporations (dole pineapple) and military ops. Some of the stories are really eye opening.

    That perspective is interesting Jason. How does “progress” fit into this pair of dimes? Morally and scientifically? If we cant escape our local narrative and take a peek from Nagels “view from nowhere” (which is an excellent book) how do we make judgements on human progress?

  59. It turns out those “religious freedom” laws work both ways: The woman, using the pseudonym Mary Doe, was represented by James MacNaughton, who argued that Doe has a right to receive an abortion without undergoing the waiting period because it violated her religious beliefs. Doe is a member of the Satanic Temple, which holds that a person’s body is subject to that person’s will alone.

    http://www.columbiamissourian.com/news/state_news/court-hears-arguments-against-abortion-waiting-period/article_ad1835ae-6627-11e5-9fb2-870fdc0ea9f8.html

    Not mentioned is that this is another [successful] challenge by the Satanic Temple. Earlier this week the Ten Commandments statue was removed from the Oklahoma Supreme Court

  60. The world we live in now:

    http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/30790613-story

    A woman with a concealed weapons permit shot at a person suspected of shoplifting in Auburn Hills. Police say a shoplifter was leaving Home Depot around 2 p.m. Tuesday. As he walked out, the store’s loss prevention employee tried to stop him.

    “The shoplifter then got into a dark-colored SUV and begin to flee,” says Lt Jill McDonnell of Auburn Hills Police Department.

    Police say a customer in the parking lot witnessed the employee trying to stop the shoplifter – and decided to intervene.

    Photo Customer with CPL shoots at shoplifting suspect at Home Depot

    “The customer, who was a CPL holder, then fired shots at the vehicle,” McDonnell says. “(We) believe they blew out at least one of the tires on the vehicle.”

    First, you’re really going to kill someone for shoplifting?

    Second, this is the sort of world that people want to live in? Where we not only have to worry about random lunatics shooting up the joint, but now we have to worry about getting hit ‘accidentally’ because some fucking amateur gun nut decides they’re going to LARP Dirty Harry?

    There are days when I seriously consider emigrating to Canada.

  62. Well as a Catholic I believe that loving my neighbor fulfills the law, so any movement toward that, and away from selfish indulgence, is progress.

    See? You can be postmodern without abandoning other stuff!

  63. Haha! My concern is that you appear to take away with your left what you give with your right. Agree to disagree 🙂

  66. I love you guys. No offense taken. I am a fundamentalist catholic and im not embarassed of it. I dont want my religion to “coincidently” reflect the culture and times I happened to be born into. My opinions are old school and my personality is sort of abrasive. Lol! That puts me in the fundie camp and im cool with that 🙂

  67. I dont know man I think the glove fits in my case. Depends on how you describe fundamentalist. A protestant fundamentalist is usually a young earth creationist biblical literalist. In THAT sense im not a fundamentalist. But, another way of describing those same people would be “the group that hasnt changed their mind in the last hundred years”. In THAT sense, I do embody a catholic version of fundamentalism. I loath ecumenism, I like latin masses, I think novus ordo masses are lame, im not optimistic that any people outside of the Church will be saved, I read the baltimore catechism, favor the union of church and state, and my fav philosopher is Aquinas. Thats as bad as it gets on our side of the tiber! Lol still, you cant deny what you think. My positions are what they are.

  68. You’re quick to reject things the Church teaches. You are quick to reject the Pope. You reject Vatican 2. You like the Church only at a certain period of time. I agree that that mentality puts you in danger of becoming a fundamentalist at some point. However that mentality is not very Catholic; it is more of a rad trad. I think it is fine to be traditional. I go to a traditional parish with latin mass myself. I even hold to a lot of the same views, I just don’t reject our current Church.

    However, I would say an actual example of a “Catholic fundamentalist” is Gerry Matatics. And by that, I mean he isn’t actually Catholic.

  70. Lol woah nelly!

    You’re quick to reject things the Church teaches. You are quick to reject the Pope. You reject Vatican 2. You like the Church only at a certain period of time.

    Thats a fairly inaccurate description. I think I prefer the definition that I laid out above. Garry is a Sede he isnt in communion with the bishop of rome. I think a better example of a catholic fundamentalist would be the sspx, chris ferrara, the vortex guy, etc.

    What parish do you attend?

  71. “Thats a fairly inaccurate description”

    I apologize if you think I misrepresented you, I may have ran a little far in my characterization. But still, I don’t think you are fundamentalist Catholic – just a pretty traditional one. SSPX is probably a better example of fundamentalist Catholic, but they are flirting with schism, if not in out right schism for some of them. I think a fundamentalist mindset is what leads one to schism, which is why its natural habitat is Protestantism and not Catholicism (which was my original point).

    I attend St. Anthony’s in King George, VA. Where do you attend?

  75. Ir you are going to do a Sopranos episode I have to be on it! Favorite one hit wonders, Melt with you, Take on Me, and you guys forget Informer from Snow! One problem with God’s dick move, is there was no Paradise before the resurrection, so Lazurus was brought back from Sheol/hades 😋

  76. I was actually gonna coment on the sheol thing, but the whole concept of “Dick Move God” is so funny I chose to let it go. Also, an argument could be made that paradise didn’t exist until after the consummation in 70 A.D.

Related Posts